Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

 Ask Your VA Claims Question  

 Read Current Posts 

  Read Disability Claims Articles 
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users |  Search  | Rules 

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

President Signs Hr. 4899

Rate this question


SgtAFMOB

Question

The President signed into law today HR. 4899 the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010 see http://www.militaryupdate.com. Additionally here is a quote from aTom Philpot article dated July 29 2010. Title: 60 Day Countdown Near for Paying New "AO" Claims.

"A sixty day countdown to the day that the VA can start compensating up to 86,000 veterans retroactively for the disorders will be when the VA publishes it's final implementing regulation which could be next week." :rolleyes:

And yes the letter Stillhere got is popping up all over, it's a canned letter. If Webb had a part in it he needs to brush up on procedural issues or just some Aid drafted it who also needs to brush up, it is flawed in terms of the procedure cited. The Secretary was under no obligation to run anything by Congress see Law 102-4, Febuary 16, 1991, the Agent Orange Act. If someone thinks the Secretary didn't have sufficient evidence as furnished by the IOM then bring on your experts of which Webb is not one. Benedict Arnold was a warrior and a partriot before he became a traitor to the people he served with!!!

Hope this encouaging and helpful. :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

Any time the VA owns up to its responsibility to take care of Veterans without the hassle they put us through every day is a good day.

86,000 Veterans affected does seem kind of low considering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time the VA owns up to its responsibility to take care of Veterans without the hassle they put us through every day is a good day.

86,000 Veterans affected does seem kind of low considering.

As you are a moderator I am wondering what constructive, informative value did you comment have and the contridiction involving the number of people involved is factless. If you have stats to share please do. This is supposed to be Vets serving Vets. No meaningless supposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link below will take you to the law as being discussed. In the box where is says final action the date is 12/2010 That is why I say this will not happen till then.

I hope it happens sooner there are many deserving vets out there waiting that have been denied before and just as many widows too.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=2900-AN54

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

As you are a moderator I am wondering what constructive, informative value did you comment have and the contridiction involving the number of people involved is factless. If you have stats to share please do. This is supposed to be Vets serving Vets. No meaningless supposition.

First of all my observation was that I was happy that the VA was going to help Agent Orange Veterans.

I also wonder if 86,000 is a good number. Its the VA's number not mine. Millions were exposed how many get benefits would be the stats I would like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

A small fraction of Vietnam vets receive benefits for AO diseases. How many vets will die from AO exposure we don't know because every few years a number of fatal diseases are added to the presumptive list. Widows of dead vets who don't get DIC are usually totally ignorant of the VA. They don't think " Oh, my husband who died 10 years ago might have died of an AO disease. I should be getting DIC". They think they are lucky if the dead husband gets burial in a VA cemetary. If you were exposed to AO 40 years ago you don't get a benefit until you file a claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

As you are a moderator I am wondering what constructive, informative value did you comment have and the contridiction involving the number of people involved is factless. If you have stats to share please do. This is supposed to be Vets serving Vets. No meaningless supposition.

Considering your statement,

I would also have to ask: What constructive, informative value did YOUR comment have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use